4 ms·

I believe economic inequality is quite unrelated to pollution. You can have rich and green (Ireland/Switzerland), rich and carbon-heavy (Arab states/US/Aussie),

I believe economic inequality is quite unrelated to pollution. You can have rich and green (Ireland/Switzerland), rich and carbon-heavy (Arab states/US/Aussie), poor and green (most developing countries have very low carbon emissions) or poor and carbon-heavy (Iran). https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-fossil-energy-vs-gdp https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-fossil-energy-... Also, do you not consider 2100 "long-term"? Do you think economic effects of the environment will only reflect later?

trabant00 4y ago
> You can have rich and green (Ireland/Switzerland) You can only have that because they outsource pollution.
- the_third_wave 4y ago
  The comparison here was "carbon-heavy" versus "green", not polluting versus non-polluting. Carbon dioxide is not pollution and has no relation to the outsourcing of it. A country which uses 100% nuclear power and as such does not emit any (or hardly any) Carbon dioxide would be "green" and as such would be "rich and green".
  - trabant00 4y ago
    The post I'm replying to starts with "I believe economic inequality is quite unrelated to _pollution_." And energy production is just one aspect. Do the rich green countries not consume any plastic products? Meat? Do they have 100% electric vehicles?
    - danuker 4y ago
      I was referring to greenhouse gas pollution, which may have been unclear. CO2 and methane are pollutants. But your point still stands, as you illustrate. Countries might be importing CO2- and methane-heavy products rather than manufacture their own.
Festro 4y ago
2100 is reasonably long term in my mind. It's an arbitrary milestone that a lot of people are using, as in these SSPs. The assessment that generated the SSPs puts SSP5 at an estiamted 4.4 degrees C increase in global average temperatures by 2100. 4 degrees of increase is brutal for the climate and the knock on effects on global resources are what I am focussing on. Extreme weather, flooding, drought, knock on effects on our globalised supply chains, and the hidden costs to offsetting all of this. GDP could increase, but so would population displacement, need for disaster recovery, moving agriculture to changing climate zones and so on. SSP5 is generally considered a 'strange' approach to global social well-being, more of a 'what if fossil fuel fanatics tried their hands at global welfare, and just paid to mitigate the harm they create'. AKA a huge gamble and one that goes against human nature. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Socioeconomic_Pathways https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Socioeconomic_Pathways https://www.greenfacts.org/en/impacts-global-warming/l-2/index.htm https://www.greenfacts.org/en/impacts-global-warming/l-2/ind...
- danuker 4y ago
  I thank you for clarifying! Indeed, a hot Earth would mean a lot of disruption. But we'd have a lot of time to deal with it, also. And IPCC (which is an institution created to summarize science and estimate the impacts) should have taken the disruption into account (it being the main purpose of its existence). But thank you for the links, I will definitely read some more.

trabant00 4y ago

> You can have rich and green (Ireland/Switzerland) You can only have that because they outsource pollution.

the_third_wave 4y ago
The comparison here was "carbon-heavy" versus "green", not polluting versus non-polluting. Carbon dioxide is not pollution and has no relation to the outsourcing of it. A country which uses 100% nuclear power and as such does not emit any (or hardly any) Carbon dioxide would be "green" and as such would be "rich and green".
- trabant00 4y ago
  The post I'm replying to starts with "I believe economic inequality is quite unrelated to _pollution_." And energy production is just one aspect. Do the rich green countries not consume any plastic products? Meat? Do they have 100% electric vehicles?
  - danuker 4y ago
    I was referring to greenhouse gas pollution, which may have been unclear. CO2 and methane are pollutants. But your point still stands, as you illustrate. Countries might be importing CO2- and methane-heavy products rather than manufacture their own.

Festro 4y ago

2100 is reasonably long term in my mind. It's an arbitrary milestone that a lot of people are using, as in these SSPs. The assessment that generated the SSPs puts SSP5 at an estiamted 4.4 degrees C increase in global average temperatures by 2100. 4 degrees of increase is brutal for the climate and the knock on effects on global resources are what I am focussing on. Extreme weather, flooding, drought, knock on effects on our globalised supply chains, and the hidden costs to offsetting all of this. GDP could increase, but so would population displacement, need for disaster recovery, moving agriculture to changing climate zones and so on. SSP5 is generally considered a 'strange' approach to global social well-being, more of a 'what if fossil fuel fanatics tried their hands at global welfare, and just paid to mitigate the harm they create'. AKA a huge gamble and one that goes against human nature. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Socioeconomic_Pathways https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Socioeconomic_Pathways https://www.greenfacts.org/en/impacts-global-warming/l-2/index.htm https://www.greenfacts.org/en/impacts-global-warming/l-2/ind...

danuker 4y ago
I thank you for clarifying! Indeed, a hot Earth would mean a lot of disruption. But we'd have a lot of time to deal with it, also. And IPCC (which is an institution created to summarize science and estimate the impacts) should have taken the disruption into account (it being the main purpose of its existence). But thank you for the links, I will definitely read some more.